White House to Kerry: Prove Assertion

[pandybat]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

The Bush administration, casting doubts on John Kerry's credibility, strongly suggested on Monday that the presumptive Democratic nominee lied when he said some foreign leaders privately backed his presidential bid.

One day after Secretary of State Colin Powell called on Kerry to identify his foreign backers but made no accusations, the administration ratcheted up the challenge, saying Kerry should identify the leaders who purportedly hope he defeats Bush in November.

"Either he is straightforward and states who they are, or the only conclusion one can draw is that he is making it up to attack the president," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Americans deserve to know what Kerry has been telling foreign leaders. Cheney noted that at a campaign event Sunday in which a heckler challenged Kerry to produce names, the Democrat declined, saying, "that's none of your business."

"But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders," Cheney said at a congressional fund-raiser in Phoenix. "At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to them that makes them so supportive of his candidacy."

Why??
What difference does it make who's supporting him?
Please explain.

[luvmetender]

It's the perception that other countries in general are supporting him over Bush. I agree that if Kerry is going to bring that up, he should be able to back it up.

[patti1]

I can't explain. If they are foreign leaders they sure can't vote for him. And I feel it is ludicrous for anyone in this administration to call anyone else a liar. I am not a Bush hater, or lover, I am just a terribly disappointed voter.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by pandybat

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]



Why??
What difference does it make who's supporting him?
Please explain.

You don't see this as an issue of credibility? I mean everything that President Bush says, even down to what he had for breakfast, probably, is picked apart and demanded to be proven. This is actually a big assertion on Kerry's part. If it's true, why not back it up? If it's not, why say it in the first place?

[bradedit]

Yea, sorta like the proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction, now that was credible

[monkee]

Originally Posted by bradedit

Yea, sorta like the proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction, now that was credible

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. I know alot of people still believe it was a "lie" or whatever, and then use that to call into question Bush's credibility on every issue, no matter how small. If Kerry's going around blabbing about things he can't back up, it speaks to his credibility. So, if he's elected president, what's to stop him from "lying" about just about anything, big or small?

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by bradedit

Yea, sorta like the proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction, now that was credible

I'm getting tired of this revisionism. EVERYONE believed that Saddam had WMD's! The Democrats thought so, the Germans thought so, the French thought so, even the UN thought so. The issue before going into Iraq wasn't IF they had them, it was WHAT we were going to do about it. Nobody "lied" and it still hasn't been proven that there were none. All that's been proven so far is that we haven't found them yet. Did the Dead Sea Scrolls not exist before we found them? Are astronomers lying now when they say that black holes exist? No one has ever seen one, only the evidence that they exist. Therefore, by your logic, if sometime in the future black holes are disproved or are never provable, the scientists lied.

[FUNdamental]

Originally Posted by Taxman

I'm getting tired of this revisionism. EVERYONE believed that Saddam had WMD's! The Democrats thought so, the Germans thought so, the French thought so, even the UN thought so. The issue before going into Iraq wasn't IF they had them, it was WHAT we were going to do about it. Nobody "lied" and it still hasn't been proven that there were none. All that's been proven so far is that we haven't found them yet. Did the Dead Sea Scrolls not exist before we found them? Are astronomers lying now when they say that black holes exist? No one has ever seen one, only the evidence that they exist. Therefore, by your logic, if sometime in the future black holes are disproved or are never provable, the scientists lied.

Didn't we pretty much tell the UN why they couldn't find the Iraqi WMD? I remember the nice drawings of the mobile labs producing stockpiles of bad stuff Secretary Powell so proudly displayed for the UN.

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

Didn't we pretty much tell the UN why they couldn't find the Iraqi WMD? I remember the nice drawings of the mobile labs producing stockpiles of bad stuff Secretary Powell so proudly displayed for the UN.

If that's all you can recall about Iraq and WMD over the last decade you need to do more research.

[mayor]

Originally Posted by bradedit

Yea, sorta like the proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction, now that was credible

Sounds like a broken record... broken record... broken record...

One more time, with feeling!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Mayor

[chippers21]

WMD's again? Ho-Hum. For me the bigger issue is whether or not we want to fight terrorism. Saddam Hussein is a terrible excuse for a human being and he supports terrorism. The world is better off without him as the head of the Iraqi government. It seems to me that what is going on in Iraq now is the attempts of terrorists to regain control of Iraq before a stable government can be formed. They hope to demoralize the opposition enough to persuade them to give up. Hence the attack in Spain.
The Kerry thing IS an important issue in the sense that he cannot just go around CLAIMING the support of foreign leaders. That is a political ploy to weaken Bushes re-election campaign. If he says something like what he said he needs to name names. Otherwise he is just saying what he thinks voters want to hear/ what will get votes. The fact that foreign nations do not vote in this country is not relevant because it is the over-all picture this claim of support presents to American voters.

[bradedit]

Originally Posted by mayor

Sounds like a broken record... broken record... broken record...

One more time, with feeling!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Mayor

Humor or sarcasm, hard to tell with you righties!

[FUNdamental]

Originally Posted by Taxman

If that's all you can recall about Iraq and WMD over the last decade you need to do more research.

I can recall many other claims, which, by the way, also turned out to be ridiculous. The problem was when the President’s claims were proven false, The President and the administration never admitted they were wrong or gullible, They chose instead to move forward by fabricating and exaggerating.

[mayor]

Originally Posted by bradedit

Humor or sarcasm, hard to tell with you righties!

View the link. It quotes democratic leadership on WMD. Right from the horse's mouth. Er... Donkey's mouth. Consider it
a WMD 101 refresher course for those who have short memories.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Mayor

[Rockabillie]

The White House knows that international political dealings such as this are always done behind closed doors. No names can be released. The White House knows this and is calling Kerry's bluff, knowing he can't reveal any names. It's just more of the usual political PR games. We'll never know who said what until they all write their tell-all bios in their old age!

Meanwhile, remember the working folk out there in the US who need both candidates to be talking about REAL stuff like health care, exporting jobs, the economy, etc. Forget the secret spy stuff and lets talk about social security.